Accuracy of conventional impressions and digital scans for implant-supported fixed prostheses in maxillary free-ended partial edentulism: An in vitro study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the accuracy of conventional polyether impressions and digital scans produced by five intra-oral scanners (IOSs) in maxillary free-ended partial edentulism for long-span implant-supported prostheses. METHODS: This in vitro study involved the impression of a maxillary model with free-end partial edentulism, in which six implants were placed before digitization using a desktop scanner to generate a digital reference model. Conventional impressions (Impregum Penta Soft, 3M) and digital scans with five IOSs (Trios 3 and 4, 3Shape; Primescan, Dentsply-Sirona; CS 3600, Carestream Dental; and i-500, Medit) were obtained. Conventional impressions were digitized using the same desktop scanner. Each digital STL file of conventional or digital impressions was superimposed over the reference STL file to enable comparison. Trueness was assessed by calculating angles and distance deviations. For precision, dispersions of values around their means were also measured. RESULTS: The mean distance deviation was significantly higher for conventional impressions (454.24 ± 334.70 µm) than for IOSs (ranging from 160.98 ± 204.48 µm to 255.56 ± 395.89 µm) (p < 0.001). The mean angular deviation was high with conventional impressions (1.82 ± 1.51°), intermediate with CS 3600 (1.38 ± 1.42°), Primescan (1.37 ± 2.54°) and Trios 4 (1.30 ± 0.64°) scanners, and lower with I500 (0.97 ± 0.75°) and Trios 3 (1.01 ± 0.85°) scanners (p < 0.001). The dispersion of distance values around their means was lowest with Trios 3 and i-500, followed by CS3600, Primescan, and Trios 4, respectively, and higher for conventional impressions (p < 0.001). The dispersion of angular values was smallest with i-500, Trios 3, and Trios 4 compared with other groups and was highest with Primescan (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Within the limits of the current study, Trios 3 scanner exhibited the highest accuracy, followed by i-500, Trios 4, CS 3600, Primescan, and conventional impressions respectively. IOSs might be reliable for the fabrication of an implant-supported prosthesis. In vivo studies are required to confirm these findings. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Passive adaptation of the implant-supported framework is a challenge when rehabilitating patients with maxillary free-end partial edentulism. While Conventional impressions remain a reliable and validated technique, but IOSs demonstrated higher accuracy, suitable for the fabrication of long-span implant-supported prostheses in partially edentulous arch.

Accuracy of Conventional and Digital Impressions for Full-Arch Implant-Supported Prostheses: An In Vitro Study.

Both conventional and digital impressions aim to record the spatial position of implants in the dental arches. However, there is still a lack of data to justify the use of intraoral scanning over conventional impressions for full-arch implant-supported prostheses. The objective of the in vitro study was to compare the trueness and precision of conventional and digital impressions obtained with four intra-oral scanners: Trios 4 from 3Shape®, Primescan from Dentsply Sirona®, CS3600 from Carestream® and i500 from Medit®. This study focused on the impression of an edentulous maxilla in which five implants were placed for implant-supported complete prosthesis. The digital models were superimposed on a digital reference model using dimensional control and metrology software. Angular and distance deviations from the digital reference model were calculated to assess trueness. Dispersion of the values around their mean for each impression was also calculated for precision. The mean distance deviation in absolute value and the direction of the distance deviation were smaller for conventional impressions (p-value < 0.001). The I-500 had the best results regarding angular measurements, followed by Trios 4 and CS3600 (p < 0.001). The conventional and I-500 digital impressions showed the lowest dispersion of values around the mean (p-value < 0.001). Within the limitations of our study, our results revealed that the conventional impression was more accurate than the digital impression, but further clinical studies are needed to confirm these findings.